In May 1996 Ioan Owen refused a search request. Later, Mr Eastwood was told to admit intimidating and harassing Mr Owen or past matters would be brought up against him.

Mr Hunter said: "From then on there were a series of events whose purpose was to secure evidence as a foundation for dismissal proceedings.

"Individuals were counselled to provide false statements."

Mr Eastwood was found "guilty of misconduct" and given a formal warning.

Mr Hunter said: "Mr Williams was asked to provide a false state-ment against Mr Eastwood. When he refused, he was threatened with a possible investigation into his own conduct."

Later, Mr Eastwood made a successful appeal. But the pair were ordered to leave the plant after Mrs Roberts made "a serious allegation of sexual harassment".

They faced a "fact-finding investigation" and were asked 134 preprepared questions by a company boss who later acted as company prosecutor at an industrial tribunal. And the two were then suspended from work.

Mr Hunter said: "Members of management asked Mrs Roberts to 'beef-up' her allegations and assisted her to do this."

Mr Hunter said Mrs Roberts' allegations were from notes in her diary but it was never disclosed. Judge Gareth Edwards said he could order Mrs Roberts to make her diary available.

Mr Hunter said the allegations were typed in a schedule with a note saying they were all agreed by witnesses. The claimants' requests for copies of the statements so they could be challenged were refused, he said.

"There were never any witness statements at all."

Judge Edwards said: "Two men were put on trial for their livelihoods without even being told what they were alleged to have done."

Mr Hunted claimed a company tribunal was "nothing short of a charade".